Saturday, July 25, 2009

Modern Philosophy Poisoned the Roman Catholic Church

It seems undeniable if one is willing to consider the evidence that the Roman Catholic Church has been poisoned by the acceptance (among the hierarchy) of modern philosophy especially the logically bankrupt concept of "Historicism.” Pope Pius IX (Syllabus of Errors) HERE... and Pope St. Pius X tried valiantly (Pascendi Dominici gregis HERE) to extinguish the virus that is modern philosophy and the Modernist theological heresy that followed in its wake. Unfortunately, instead of being totally eliminated, the Modernists went to ground in order to fight another day. They appear to have re-emerged in a more virulent form as the neo-Modernist (Progressivist) Periti who gained control of the Second Vatican Council after it was called unnecessarily by John XXIII(1) and promulgated by Paul VI. These men were and are still heavily represented among the European (especially German and French) episcopacy and in the wake of Vatican II have largely replaced the more orthodox/conservative Roman episcopacy. Thus, the current Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is influenced if not controlled by modernists/progressives/heretics. That unfortunately appears to be the sad truth of the matter. Put another way, traditional Roman Catholic theology has been placed in the service of a nefarious yet over-arching set of philosophical/theological beliefs by the neo-modernists who now control the Vatican including the Cardinalate and the world-wide episcopacy. There are of course a few traditional/orthodox exceptions although none appear prepared to follow to an ultimate logical conclusion the heterodox trail which has been laid out by the "reformers."(3) In apparent fear and paralyzing indecision they fail to act as neo-Modernist Progressvies continue to express support for Vatican II and all the post-Conciliar "reforms" in total denial of the negative fruit(4) that is now universally apparent (40+ years later).

Recall: Martin Luther hated the Roman Catholic Mass. He objected to the Mass understood as the unbloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross of Calvary re-enacted by the Priest in persona Christi (in the person of Jesus Christ). He taught that it was a memorial of the Last Supper only that is, a communal meal service of believers done in memory of what Christ did on Holy Thursday (The Last Supper) not an actual sacrifice in which Christ's passion and crucifixion is offered to God the Father for the remission of sin. This difference is monumental! Roman Catholic teaching is clear that Jesus Christ on Holy Thursday commanded the Apostles to do what He did--offer the only sacrifice which is acceptable to God the Father--the life and propitiatory death of His Son Jesus Christ. That is what every Priest did at each and every Mass throughout the world until Paul VI delivered the Novus Ordo Missae to an unsuspecting global faithful. Since then the universal belief and practice of the Roman Catholic Church particularly as concerns the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been continually undermined.(4)

Luther's view is totally consistent with the fact that the so-called Protestant "observer's" at Vatican II functioned as actual participants in constructing the new "reformed mass." It is logically impossible that these Protestant participants desired to help create a new and updated Roman Catholic Mass--faithful to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. After all, they were Protestant and not Catholic in large part because they did not accept the traditional concept of the Mass as an extra-space/time dimensional re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. That is, they all inherently rejected transubstantiation and the "Real Presence" of Jesus Christ (body, blood, soul and divinity) under the species of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist.

Even more outrageously, Luther made the inherently ridiculous claim that Christ's sacrificial death on the Cross "covered" all of the believer's sins such that one could sin with impunity as long as one believed through faith even more--an obvious afront to the Holiness of God and a clear contradiction of the words of Christ--"if you love me, obey my commandments" (Jn. 14:15).

The perennial Roman Catholic doctrine in contradistinction is that Christ's propitiatory sacrifice is applied only to those who are truly sorry for their sins, repent (turn away) from their sinful transgressions and amend their lives in such a way as to become truly transformed by the grace of God through the power of the Holy Spirit. The hollowness of the Lutheran view is readily apparent in that it allows the sinner to persist in their sinful habits without a fundamental transformation. Luther ignores so much of the Gospel it is difficult to believe that anyone would have accepted his teaching.

As is true of so many things in life, the change in philosophical orientation preceeded the change in Roman Catholic ecclesiology/praxis. In this case, the devolution was from the perennial philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas to the amalgam of contradictory philosophical concepts which Pope St. Pius X correctly labeled the synthesis of all errors (heresies). In Pascendi Dominici gregis he taught that Modernism leads to the annihilation of religion and ultimately to atheism (where the demonic influence is obvious).


(1) There was no dogmatic/doctrinal heresy posed which required that a Council be called to refute it. Moreover, Vatican II was specifically termed a "pastoral" council not one intended to address doctrinal/dogmatic issues despite the fact that it did so.

(2) At the very least, there should exist some Bishop or Cardinal who is prepared to formally charge the Conciliar Church including the Novus Ordo Missae with the promulgation of inexcusable heterodoxy and to demand that the Holy See defend the charge.

(3) “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

(4) The Roman Catholic Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice is a dogma believed always and everywhere by Catholics up until then--ala the Vincentian Canon.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

No comments:

What/Where is the Roman Catholic Church?

In light of Traditional Catholic dogma/doctrine, how should the Second Vatican Council be viewed ? Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching?

What explains the tremendous amount of "bad fruit" which has been forthcoming since the close of the Council in 1965? “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16)

This site explores these questions and more in an attempt to place the Second Vatican Council in proper perspective.